are to suppose, as seems to be intimated, that Pantænus, his master, was of the same opinion. Clement says that it was written in Hebrew by Paul, and translated by Luke.* But Origen, who was his pupil, and an exceedingly learned man, seems not to have regarded it as Paul's.† Eusebius tells us, that its genuineness was doubted by many, down to his time, and that it was rejected, in particular, by the Latin church. Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas. Jerome says, that it was thought not to be Paul's, on account of the argument and style, which were different from those of St. Paul's acknowledged writings. Several modern critics, as Grotius, Le Clerc, Limborch, Calvin and others, have not been satisfied with the evidence adduced to prove it a work of Paul. Whoever was the author, it is, however, a very ancient production, written, as it appears, before the destruction of Jerusalem.‡

The opinion of Christian antiquity, too, was divided in regard to the authorship of the Epistles ascribed to James and Jude, the second of Peter, and second and third of John, as also of the Revelation, ascribed to the last. The genuineness of the above named Epistles, as Eusebius § informs us, was matter of controversy, though they were well known and approved by many, and the book of Revelation was received, by some, as John's, and rejected by others. These, some of which, it will be recollected, are very short pieces, are the only books of the New Testament, about the authorship of which there appears to have ever existed any doubt. The opinion, however, that they were rightly attributed to Paul, James, Peter, and John, seems at length to have prevailed among Christians, and hence they were classed with the other writings of the Apostles. Whether or not this decision was accurate, it is not our business at present to discuss, as we profess only to state general facts relating to the history of the New Testament, and the principle upon which the several books embodied in it, were received as parts of the sacred volume.

We have advanced one step. The first object of inquiry

*Euseb. Hist. L. vI. c. 14.

Ib. L. vI. c. 25.

See an argument on the subject of the authorship of this Epistle, in the Christian Examiner, Vol. iv. p. 495, and Vol. v. p. 37; also, New Series, Vol. 1. p. 198.

§ L. II. c. 3, 24, 25.

with the early Christians would naturally be, whether the Memoirs and Letters attributed to Matthew, Mark, and others whose names are affixed to the several books of the New Testament, were really their productions. But why, it may be asked, were the productions of these particular men admitted into the number of canonical books, to the exclusion of the productions of all other writers? What was the ground of preference? What the great and marked line of distinction between these and all contemporary writings? The reply is, the writings of the twelve Apostles would, as a matter of course, be received as parts of the canonical Scriptures, as containing the testimony of original witnesses, of the individuals chosen by our Lord to be his constant attendants, and commnissioned by him to teach his religion after his death. They were with him, they saw and conversed, ate and drank with him, and could testify to the great facts of his life, death, and resurrection, as events of which they had the evidence of their own senses. To them he imparted the great truths of his religion in trust, to be by them communicated to the world. Their minds, it could not be doubted, had from time to time received the necessary illumination. They were the only medium through which a knowledge of Christian truth could be derived, and of the sufficiency of that medium there could be no question.

On this principle, that is, on the ground that the writers were among the chosen companions and Apostles of Jesus, and commissioned by him to go and preach in his name, the Gospels of Matthew and John are received as authentic. reports of his acts and instructions; and had others of them left Gospels or memoirs of the life and discourses of their Master, they would, on the same principle, have been received into our present collection. On this principle too, the Epistles ascribed to John, Peter, and James, and the Revelation, attributed to John, would, as soon as ascertained upon satisfactory evidence to be their genuine productions, be admitted into the number of canonical writings. The Epistles of Paul are received upon a principle somewhat similar, that is, upon the evidence he gave of a direct commission from above to teach in the name of Jesus.

With regard to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles by the latter, the case is a little different. They were not among our Lord's personal and chosen

attendants; they were not of the Twelve, nor have we any evidence that they were miraculously called to the office of evangelists. There was something, however, in the circumstances under which they wrote, which, in the opinion of all Christian antiquity, gave to their productions a title to respect, that was not possessed by any of their cotemporaries, with the exception of the twelve Apostles and Paul. It was a constant tradition, not probably without foundation, that Mark was the companion of Peter in his travels, and that his Gospel, in fact, only contains the substance of Peter's preaching, that it was written at the request of the Roman Christians, who were solicitous to have some enduring memorial of the Apostle's instructions left among them. This account is derived from different writers, as Clement * of Alexandria, Irenæus, Origen, and Eusebius, soine of whom add, that after it was written it was seen and approved by Peter. Their narratives vary in one or two particulars. Thus, Irenæus says, that the Gospel was written after Peter's death. But all unite in affirming, that Mark wrote what he heard from the lips of Peter. He was called, in fact, Peter's interpreter. Such appears to be the ground upon which Mark's Gospel was received by the early Christians into the number of sacred books. It was always named with the other evangelical narratives, and treated with equal respect; and for this there must have been some reason, in the known circumstances of the writer, for the ancient Christians appear to have been scrupulous in what they received or rejected.

A similar remark may be made in regard to Luke, who was the companion of Paul, as Mark was of Peter, and who professes to have written from information derived from original witnesses. With this all tradition concurs. It may be proper to add, that Eusebiust mentions a report that

Clement, as quoted by Eusebius, says, "Those Gospels which contain the genealogy were written first. And this was the occasion of writing Mark's Gospel. When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the spirit, many who were present, entreated Mark, who had been his follower a long time, and remembered what he had said, that he would write down the things which had been spoken. When he had composed the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had requested it."- Hist. L. vI. c. 14.

Hist. L. 1. c. 24.

John, before he composed his Gospel, had seen those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and confirmed their truth by his testimony. On supposition of the truth of this account, the productions of Mark and Luke would be raised to a rank with the writings of the original witnesses of our Lord's life. But independently of this, the situation of Luke, which enabled him, to use his own words, to have "a perfect understanding of all things from the first," and his connexion with Paul, as a fellow traveller, would give to his Gospel, and to the Acts, which he calls his "second treatise," a more than ordinary claim to regard. One thing is certain. Both his productions, and Mark's, seem, from whatever cause, to have been understood, by those who were better judges in the case than we can pretend to be, to have received, in some way, an Apostolical sanction.

We have now done with the writings embraced in the New Testament. It remains to speak briefly of the history and claims of other writings which have been attributed, by some, to the same period, but which form no part of the sacred volume. These must be distributed into different classes. In the first we may place the writings of which the authors were known, as the productions of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and others called Apostolical Fathers, that is, men who enjoyed personal intercourse with the Apostles. These were, by supposition, no forgeries. They were written with an honest purpose, and the authors of them never meant to pass them off as canonical books, or books having equal authority with those of the Apostles. They were, some of them, at least, in much esteem with the early Christians, as productions of very pious men, and as such were permitted to be read in the public assemblies of believers; permitted to be read as books adapted to nourish a spirit of Christian piety and virtue, much as homilies and sermons have been in later times. But they were never regarded as forming parts of the sacred writings. Of this we have abundant evidence from history. Whenever they are spoken of, or alluded to, by ancient Christian writers, it is in terms very different from those applied to the books comprising our present collection.

They were not admitted into the number of canonical books for a very obvious reason. They were not written by inspired men, by Apostles, men divinely commissioned to

teach in the name of Jesus, nor by the direction, and under sanction of those who were such, and therefore, though valued, as we have said, for the pious spirit they breathe, they were never regarded as of divine authority.

These writings, or what pass for the same, though the genuineness and integrity of all of them are much doubted, and some of them are evidently spurious, constitute the larger part of the collection, the title of which stands at the head of the present article. They occupy the latter portion of the volume, but we have named them first, as they are more considerable in bulk, and have a better claim to respect, than the other pieces included in it. They were translated into English, and published many years ago by Dr. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Besides these, numerous writings attributed to the first age, were published, relating to Jesus and his Apostles, and many of them under the names of the latter. Part of these were plain forgeries, though generally, perhaps, undertaken for a pious purpose; and part, intended to embody various traditionary accounts of our Saviour and his Apostles, were written, it would seem, by very simple-minded men, who, perhaps, believed what they wrote. Of these writings, the larger portion have long since perished. The learned Jeremiah Jones, in the work already referred to, has given a catalogue of such of them as are quoted or named by the Fathers, but which are not now extant, with critical notices and remarks, containing the testimonies of ancient writers respecting them.* Several of them bore the name of Gospels, as the Gospel of Andrew, of Peter, of Thomas, of the Twelve Apostles, of Barnabas, and those according to the Hebrews, the Nazarenes, and Egyptians. Among them, also, are the Acts of Peter, the Preaching of Peter, the Acts of Thomas, perhaps the same as the Gospels, the Revelation of Paul, and other pieces, which it is unnecessary to enumerate. Of these, with the exception of the Gospels according to the Hebrews and Nazarenes, if not, as probably

* Vol. I.

A catalogue of the spurious Gospels, the titles of which amount to about forty in number, with extracts from the Fathers respecting them and some short fragments preserved in their quotations, may be found in Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Nov. Test. Vol. 11. p. 335, et.

seq.